It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

On the basis of Morality.

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


What is it then that. Watcher In the Shadows belive in?

What is it exactly, i'm quite intrigued!




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
reply to post by Republican08
 


well...i would assume that loving god is the most important moral in christianity since not loving god is the only unforgivable sin.
so my answer is "love god."

do i win money?



No, no money involved, more or less a soul perhaps. lol

For christianity mainly, if you believe jesus died for your sins then that's grounds for entering heaven.

Not loving god, would be to presume that he does exist but your against him.

See it?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Simple answer, "I kill you in the name of *put ideology here or ethnic group or nationality or etc etc etc*!". And I can't watch the video so either way. Is it more of the "he wanted to be worshipped like a god so thusly he's religious" bs? I would be forced to question your ability for logic again in the face of that illogic.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Republican08
It showed ultimately that apes process wrongdoings, he felt robbed, stolen from and injusticed, it was amazing, i'll find the video sooner or later!


Or does it demonstrate how quickly institutionalised behaviour sets in?


Explain further please?

Institutionalised? How so?


One Ape is in a cage...is the cage the natural place for the ape to be? Is it natural for the ape to be reliant on others for food, to not seek out food for itself, to eat when it wants to eat etc etc. It is given a small confined environment in which to exist (all this can be easily applied to modern human existence if you think about it) and a bowl of food. The new ape, with no experience of this type of confinement will take the food if it has the means to do so, why shouldn't it? It doesn't know that there are rules. The other will complain because it was saving that food because he knows that he is reliant on his human captors to provide him with food and he doesn't know the next time that they will do so. He is already institutionalised because he has the intelligence to realise that he is captive. As an intelligent animal he will adapt quickly but his behaviour will not be reflective of his behaviour in the wild. Had a new ape stolen his food in the wild that ape would have got a kicking. He demonstrates his disgust by complaining to the alphas, the human captors, to sort it out, they do, so he is happy.

I hope that makes sense. But it doesn't demonstrate to me a knowledge of wrong doing or morals, as inherent to behaviour, it demonstrates an ability to recognise situation and circumstances. The ape knows that he is not in control and appeals to those that are. Do you think that is how animals behave in their natural environment? Do you think that that is how we would behave in a natural environment where we are in control of our environment and not subject to the rules and regulation of others?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Remember my response last time you said that? Yea, still applies now.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
And besides, given the inherent silliness I have seen in my fellow man I have no doubt there has been blood shed over peanut butter preference somewhere at sometime.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
if god came down and was like..."yeah guys...uh sorry i didnt show up earlier because (pick a reason. i prefer "i was napping", but you pick).
here are all these new morals i want you to follow", and all the new morals are what we now consider to be atrocious, would you follow those new rules?
there would now be proof of divinity and still the same punishments for not following. would commands from the (something that is irrefutably) divine be enough to make you do horrific things?
why or why not.


The hypothetical situation that you propose assumes characteristics of a Deity that denote humanesque qualities of Sentient Cognizance, Morality, and is Retributively Punitive.

Perhaps I am the wrong person to ask that of as I am not Religious nor do I subscribe to any Dogmatic Religions, both of which have deities that may have such characteristics.

Although I may believe in a Primal Source Beyond All Things, a Universal Monad that is Limitless and Beyond Comprehension, I do not believe that such could be defined in any way (or even named) without losing sight of what it is, and thereby placing a falsified belief in something that it is not. To me, as such, the Infinite cannot be placated through obedience, it cannot be demanding, nor can it be punitive.

I simply could not personally follow any edicts demanded of a divinity. The only morality that I can personally follow in is the Path of Right Action. That for every moment, for every situation, there is a choice that must be made, either consciously with awareness, or unconsciously without consideration. I choose to make a willfully conscious choice with awareness of the repercussions, to Act instead of React, of be the Cause that generates a planned Effect, and to responsibly accept that Effect and be personally accountable for my choice and my actions. I have done so without regrets and without "sin" as some dogmatic religions would put it. I do none of this because I am told to. I do none of this to appease a deity. I do none of this to gain admittance into some after-life. I do such only because it is the Right Action.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by fraterormus]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 




This isn't the exact video but one of em, hopefully someone knows the video of which I speak of.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
reply to post by Republican08
 


well...i would assume that loving god is the most important moral in christianity since not loving god is the only unforgivable sin.
so my answer is "love god."

do i win money?



No, no money involved, more or less a soul perhaps. lol

For christianity mainly, if you believe jesus died for your sins then that's grounds for entering heaven.

Not loving god, would be to presume that he does exist but your against him.

See it?


well....not necessarily

well not necessarily.
you dont (and perhaps cant) love something you dont believe exists.

REFUSING to love god would be based off the presumption that he exists. its sort of a semantic thing...but oh well.


i still feel i have a right to claim money from you



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08
So newcomers to the thread see.

"What moral action, can you do as a religious person, that I as an Atheist, would be unable to do?"

(it's my own quote back off the copyright crap)

That's the main topic to keep clean there.



Hi,

I can sum that question up quite quickly.....

Right, wrong, left, right, up, down "I" as a religious person "can" still show you compassion and respect though we may disagree on an issue. Though I may think you are incorrect on many things, I will not insult you, compare you to a murderer or mock you as an idiot because you are an individual and we all have had different experiences in life. I also can forgive people and be forgiven and not hold in all of the hatred and negativity that can just eat you alive inside. It is not good for you to stew in such negativity and aggression. Having a passionate opinion is not a bad thing and I am guilty of that myself on a few topics (like lumping in the entire population of the UK as idiots in the past for depriving themselves the right of self defense though that is not true, the whole nation does not think that way) but I recognize when I have went to far or over generalized and try not to let myself be driven by that negativity.

So in summary, I can forgive, love, and be happy without causing others pain, shame, or anger.

I wish you and everyone peace, prosperity, love, health, long life, and happiness. I am truly happy with my life. I Love and am loved.

Can you truly do / say the same?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 



So in summary, I can forgive, love, and be happy without causing others pain, shame, or anger.

__________________________________________________________________________



well, not to be rude. but i think your argument falls short there. he COULD do those. he chooses not to. republican08 is too much of a donkey's rear to do those things.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Actually:

I can forgive, love, and be happy without causing others pain, shame, or anger.

I wish you and everyone peace, prosperity, love, health, long life, and happiness. I am truly happy with my life. I Love and am loved.

Can you truly do / say the same?


(Don't omit please)



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
Actually:

I can forgive, love, and be happy without causing others pain, shame, or anger.

I wish you and everyone peace, prosperity, love, health, long life, and happiness. I am truly happy with my life. I Love and am loved.

Can you truly do / say the same?


(Don't omit please)


yes. yes i could. i (and seemingly repub08)just choose not to. we have our reasons, you have yours. ours may be seen as petty, but wishing love and health upon EVERYONE may be seen as foolish. i dont know. i think an individual's perspective and outlook on life help determine action like these.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
]Originally posted by Republican08
Christopher Hitchens, inspired me to create this thread, which I think poses a great and almost absolute question to those who say that without *Religion Here* morality would be thrown out the window along with a kid.

I suppose this to be incorrect, that morality, is a evolutionary tool for survival.

So I pose the inevitable question proposed by Hitchens

"What moral action, can you do as a religious person, that I as an Atheist, would be unable to do?"


I think you're asking the question backwards. The correct question is what can an atheist do that a religious person cannot? Some use religion as an excuse to justify their actions because the religious have been misled by ignorance I'm afraid. Because of this it causes your question to be asked backwards, but that is our fault and not yours and so I apologize.

To simplify. Your question of what can a religious person do morally that atheists cannot do? The answer is absolutely nothing.

That's because religion is about rules, restrictions, discipline, and traditions. The purpose is to restrict me from just being nothing but a wild animal. It's what makes me a human being and not a monkey.

For example atheists can excuse their behavior by saying it's natural like I've heard some use to explain homosexuality for example. One example is well wild animals do it so it's okay right? It's natural right?

Well of course homosexuality is natural. But you see many foolish religious people have used the false argument that homosexuality is "not natural" to say it is wrong, but in fact they are misled. The religious objective is to fight against the natural wild animal urges inside yourself. Religion is about being unnatural. Natural is to want to steal. Natural is to want to murder and so on.

Without religion we're all just evolved creatures. Killing another human is no worse than stepping on a spider or killing a weed or hunting a deer. We're all just animals that aren't special in anyway from a moral point of view.

For example natural would mean pedophiles are completely acceptable. They are simply trying to pass on their genetic code to a mate as quickly as possible and they probably have a gene in their genetic code that urges them to commit their acts.

The young children are weaker targets and the sooner the young girls can be mated with the less chance the pedophile will have to compete with the genetic offspring of other male mates. And it does not matter that the female becomes a victim because she is simply a type of souless monkey who's only purpose is to facilate the mating anyway. Polgamy may be natural as well. One male would want to mate with as many females as possible while denying the mating opportunities of other males. However, orgies may be an even better method overall.

I find it highly ironic that what we see in the world is the exact opposite. It's usually the religious people trying to marry the young and producing far more offspring because their god told them to. On the other hand atheists set up unnatural, arbitrary age restrictions for sexual conduct. Especially from an evolutionary point of view where the only reason your 13 year old daughter even exists is for the purpose of getting knocked up and pushing out as many kids as possible before she dies. She serves no other purpose if evolution is true and yet evolutionists try to postpone this as long as possible.

This is perhaps why there's so many religious people though. If there's a religious gene if you will, since their "god" told them to use more effective mating strategies on younger women then their genes are dominate over those who don't have the religious gene.

But here's the real problem. Since there is no right or wrong atheists can do anything they want to other people, but they sure don't want other people doing that stuff back to them like rape, murder, child molestation. So what do they do?

Well atheists make legal agreements with each other. They call them governments. They say I won't steal from you and you don't steal from me. I won't murder you and you don't murder me because I don't wanna die. You don't rape my daughter and I won't rape yours and we all agree that if we do we can punish each other. And everything is based on this agreement.

This leads to the one big thing an atheist can do that a true believer can never do. Take someone's rights away. You see, a religious person believes their rights are given from god and no one has authority to take them away. The Constitution for example would simply be the government accepting that you have those rights, but they would still be there even if the Constitution was destroyed because no man can take them.

An atheist however has no rights. They have agreements with each other. Agreements that can be changed at anytime if enough people get together and decide to change those agreements.

And if they do? You become a hypocrite if you try to fight a war to gain them back. They were taken away through agreement by a government that you agreed to. Maybe not personally, but as a soceity as a whole you agreed to it and you also agreed to not kill each other and to abide by the laws and agreements you have made with each other. If you do not do so and attempt to fight back without going through your own political process you become a hypocrite via your own moral standards and agreements you've promised to uphold with your own government. No wonder atheist countries are more peaceful.

A religious person however can fight back for their rights though and be justified in doing so and not a hypocrite because they're god given rights and cannot be taken away by man just because enough people agree about it. Like how the US Government is trying to do now. Do you see the difference?

You see the fraud is that all the politicians say they're religious, but when they try to take our rights away by saying protesters are terrorists we see they are in fact atheists and their true colors. We also see the true colors of this country. It is in fact not a Christian nation after all here in the US. If they were truly religious they would realise those rights are not theirs to take.

That's the difference between us. To you my freedom of speech only exists because you agree to still let me have it. But your freedom of speech exists because my god gave it to you forever.


[edit on 19-7-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by tinfoilman]

[edit on 19-7-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
there is no such thing as morality. Who decides what is moral and what is not. No ones mortality is better then the next.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by drock905]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
without religion things might improve somewhat (who flippin knows for sure?). i'll try to explain quick like.

if i commit what some would call a sin, and i have a deity that upon asking will free me of the responsibility and weight of that action, what do i have to fear?
according to a very popular story, absolution is mine if i but ask. to me, this is easy street with all the stoplights forever stuck on green.

how can the life's lessons be learned if some over protective invisible parent figure is there to cart away anything we deem worthy of forgiveness.

on the flip side, if i take personal responsibility for actions some deem wrong and bear the weight of that lesson while i'm learning it. 100% of the decision to carry out that action will be mine and mine alone. i will exit a stronger being, ready for the next bigger challange.

bottom line, religion makes people complacent by allowing them to stay in a perpetual "saved" state. it allows responsibility for "wrong doings" to be sidestepped and seems to encourage it by tempting man to "ask for forgiveness...."

cant wait to get flamed for this one lol.

oh well to each his own.

cheers,
AA



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
there is no such thing as morality. Who decides what is moral and what is not. No ones mortality is better then the next.

[edit on 19-7-2009 by drock905]


morality is ego based and designed to be unattainable by the regular joes.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
This morality question is a problem, as I tried to say in my first post on this thread, morality to someone who thinks they are going to live forever is very different to the morality of someone who believes this life is all there is.

To the immortal thinking people, war is justifiable as is all the other things believers indulge in.

War to someone who thinks this life is all there is, is pure insanity, as is all the other stuff believers waste their time on such as worrying about what other people are getting up to ect, for a mortal thinking person the only things worth doing are those things which make life valuable



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Ok, I'll bite.

Abortion.

Morally wrong in that it is a life.

Athiests see it as a developed zygote with the potential for life and not to be treated as such.

-Apologies if this has been discussed-



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman

Well of course homosexuality is natural. But you see many foolish religious people have used the false argument that homosexuality is "not natural" to say it is wrong, but in fact they are misled. The religious objective is to fight against the natural wild animal urges inside yourself. Religion is about being unnatural. Natural is to want to steal. Natural is to want to murder and so on.


Its natural to want to steal and murder? What kind of freak show are you?

People are born with a conscience - I don't see any evidence that it came from God - because everyone has one, no matter what religion they belong to - or even if they are atheists.



Without religion we're all just evolved creatures. Killing another human is no worse than stepping on a spider or killing a weed or hunting a deer. We're all just animals that aren't special in anyway from a moral point of view.


Again, we have a conscience - and it tells us what is right and wrong, we don't need someone else to tell us.



For example natural would mean pedophiles are completely acceptable. They are simply trying to pass on their genetic code to a mate as quickly as possible and they probably have a gene in their genetic code that urges them to commit their acts.


Nope - pedophilia is wrong. Firstly children are not emotionally or physically ready to engage in sex. To do so disrupts their feelings and minds, not to mention their bodies. Also there can be no offspring if they are not sexually mature. It is not consensual - because the child has no sexual desire, and no understanding of the act.

Clearly it is wrong on a whole range of levels - also, the conscience tells us it is wrong. If no harm was done in pursuing this act - then you could say, it is abnormal - but not harmful, therefore permissible. However, children would be harmed - therefore it is wrong.



Polgamy may be natural as well. One male would want to mate with as many females as possible while denying the mating opportunities of other males. However, orgies may be an even better method overall.


Polygamy is still practiced in many countries, resulting in stable families. There is no evidence that it is wrong at all.

Orgies undermine the feelings of closeness associated with sex - therefore they would interfere with stable relationships and can easily be seen to be wrong. Children produced would be left feeling ashamed because they could not identify their father - harmful - immoral.

I could go on refuting everything you say - but your fundamental argument is that unless you are religious then you have no conscience - and that is false. Your entire argument is based on something that is false, so it is all false.



But here's the real problem. Since there is no right or wrong atheists can do anything they want to other people, but they sure don't want other people doing that stuff back to them like rape, murder, child molestation.


Here is where you state your assumption that if god disappears, then right and wrong do to - your argument is nothing less than insane.



This leads to the one big thing an atheist can do that a true believer can never do. Take someone's rights away. You see, a religious person believes their rights are given from god and no one has authority to take them away. The Constituion for example would simply be the government accepting that you have those rights, but they would still be there even if the Consitution was destroyed because no man can take them.

An atheist however has no rights. They have agreements with each other. Agreements that can be changed at anytime if enough people get together and decide to change those agreements.


Again completely false - the christian church was centered in Rome where slaves were permitted, they were permitted in American for many years - by Christian people. You have no moral high ground to be talking about peoples rights.

It doesn't matter on your religion or lack of it to agree that everyone has a right to be free, not a slave - and that freedom of thought, expression, ownership of private property and their own labor are necessary aspects of freedom.



That's the difference between us. To you my freedom of speech only exists because you agree to still let me have it. But your freedom of speech exists because my god gave it to you forever.


Your god gave me nothing - and I want nothing from him. That I exist is an inexorable consequence of the processes of time, and the forces of nature.

My freedoms are mine to protect, not granted to me by god - but by virtue of those who went before us and who believed that all men should be born with the same rights of freedom, and to pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit.

I don't deny your right to believe - do not deny my right not to.



new topics




 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join